Articles by Gar Lipow

How progressive can legislation be if it’s never allowed to make progress?

Dan Walters writes in the Sacramento Bee:

The messy departure of the chairman and executive director of the Air Resources Board, if nothing else, reflects the extremely intense, largely clandestine struggle in the Capitol over how Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's much-ballyhooed anti-global warming crusade is to be implemented.

Schwarzenegger says he fired ARB Chairman Robert Sawyer last week because the veteran energy researcher was moving too slowly on cleaning up the San Joaquin Valley's dirty air. But Sawyer and ARB Executive Director Catherine Witherspoon, who resigned Monday, have a far different version, one that rings truer. They contend that Schwarzenegger's chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, and other aides wanted them to slow down on implementing anti-global warming legislation passed last year.

Illegal, but they’ll do it anyway

According to the Vancouver Sun, Planktos is planning to continue its scheme to dump iron into the oceans off the Galapagos, even though the EPA has ruled it illegal. The EPA ruled in May that it needs a permit. Planktos CEO Russ George has a simple solution: hire a foreign vessel and fly a flag of convenience.

Ken Caldeira and Chris Field of the Carnegie Institute say that it is impossible to verify whether carbon is sequestrated, and that if it is, the added carbon will contribute to ocean acidification. Via ECT it turns out that as of June 19 Planktos still claims on its website to be using nano-particles of iron rather than regular iron dust. (It is pretty far down, so I suggest you use your browser's page search function.) Planktos has said publicly that they are not using nano-particles. Maybe they are just leaving the term on their website because it sounds cool -- which would not speak well for their integrity. Or maybe after taking major-league public hits they still have not gotten around to correcting their website -- which would not speak well for their competence. Or maybe they actually are planning to dump nano-particles of iron into the ocean, which would not speak well for their sanity.

At any rate, Jim Thomas of ETC has suggested to me that when they select their flag of convenience, they consider flying the skull and crossbones.

Legit or not?

While writing about medium wind in Alaska, I ran into information that led me to believe there were some questionable offsets involved with the project. More extensive research, including interviews with Brent Petrie of AVEC and Tom Stoddard of Native Energy, have revealed a more complicated situation, one that still doesn't look good to me.

Here is what the situation looks like at first glance: AVEC has installed wind turbines that produce electricity for around 15 cents per kWh, according to the interview on which the first post was based. That 15 cents per kWh wind is displacing 45 cents per kWh electricity -- of which 13-25 cents per kWh is diesel and diesel storage alone. Yet Native Energy is selling carbon offsets at up to $12/ton for this project -- claiming that this produces additional wind power compared to not getting the subsidy.

How does Native Energy justify this? The Alaska Tundra may be the harshest environment in the world for running renewable energy projects. The claim is that if the Tookok and other projects failed in the early stages this would have discouraged further development. The money from offsets has been used so far for operations during the first two years to cover monitoring and recovery from failures during this time.

On smart grids

My last post made the points that:

• Long-distance transmission lines tying different climate zones together reduce storage needs to a few hours capacity, by ensuring that most of the time when one machine is not producing, another is.


• The least expensive and most ecologically sound way to store electricity on the particular scale needed is with closed-cycle, lined, modular pumped storage that recirculates the same water over and over again, and thus does not draw on rivers, lakes, or other natural watercourses.

However a grid must not only be able to meet baseload (the part of demand that is the same 24 hours a day) plus daily peaks. It also has to deal with seasonal peaks as well. After all, in cooling climates (say Houston) electric demand will peak at a much higher rate in the summer than the winter. Similarly in a heating climate (say New England, Toronto, or Glasgow), demand will peak much more in the winter than the summer.

The same extended grid that can help smooth out supply can also help smooth out demand. If we have a grid that extends 3,000-5,000 kilometers across multiple climate zones, you can connect heating and cooling climates so that summer and winter peaks vary less.